Pregnant at 18. Hailed by Abortion Foes. Punished by Christian School
- 11 views
….for any Biblical argument indicating that any ministry leadership board has the right to arbitrarily decide punishments in this case apart from Biblical guidance. Closing in on 150 comments, and we are still at ground zero. Guys, this is sad.
(GN, give this a try—you’re saying that it would be good, but you’ve not fleshed it out. I would personally contend that when a deacon or elder leaves the authority of Scripture, that’s precisely where his authority ends. Church leaders do not speak ex cathedra in this dispensation, and no less than Paul commends the Bereans for fact-checking him, and Scripture also records Paul’s rebuke of Peter…even the apostles are accountable to Scripture!)
Once again, the cases that come to mind for a case such as this are found in Exodus 20:16-17, Paul’s plea to flee from fornication in 1 Corinthians, Paul’s plea to receive the erring brother in 2 Corinthians, Christ’s gentle treatment of the woman at the well and the woman caught in adultery, and the like.
Now we can, as Larry did, quibble over the motivations of the particular passages—say whether the 4x restitution for theft is restitution or punishment, or whether capital punishment has to do with image of God or public safety (I’d say both—but that does not change the fact that in other areas, we are likely to take that Torah (or other Bible) example as important.
Again, why not here? And let’s be really blunt here; if anything near 80% of fundamental kids do not reach the marriage altar with their virginity, as statistics indicate, don’t you think the hemorrhage of young people from our churches might have something to do with our approach? That they’re not “scared straight”, but rather “scared out”?
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Jay, this is simply flat out false. You have said many things that are unsupported (or that you refused to offer any support for), but this is beyond that. They did not treat her as a non-person and they did not ban her from school grounds entirely.
Larry,
If they are barring her from the grounds while school is in session, and they are barring her from attending her brother’s sports activities on the grounds, and they are barring her from graduating with her class, how is this not a ban?
Am I missing something here? Is there some kind of other meaning to ‘ban’ that I am not aware of?
As for the whole changing punishment thing - I was mistaken. I thought I read that and I was wrong. My apologies to all.
That being said, I do not, however, believe that the school’s punishment is just (equitable). I do not believe that a school can or should exercise the same authority that a local church does. I do not think that showing excessive mercy is unbiblical, even if Maddi was the worst kind of lying hypocrite there, because of the undeserved grace that I received from the Lord - and all of you also did. I do believe that she is being singled out because she is pregnant, and I do think that the school is singling her out because she is carrying a child. If she had contracted AIDS or some other disease, I don’t think the penalties would be as nearly severe, if the school even knew about it.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
You realize, don’t you, that until the very recent past none of these actions would have been controversial even in public schools, right?
I have graduated from two public schools - a junior high school (8th grade), and a public high school. In both schools, it was very common (by which I mean daily) to see pregnant women, some as far along as eight months, to be going about their classes with the rest of our other students. That was more than a decade ago, but it did happen all the time.
I know what happens in public schools, Larry. Do you?
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Let’s just all hug and move on.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
I know what happens in public schools, Larry. Do you?
Yes, I am in a public high school just about every day. And no, pregnancy is not a common thing. And yes, there are alternative schools for pregnant teens even today. But none of the acceptance in the very recent past is what I was talking about. My point is that that there was a time not that long ago that this was not even in dispute in public schools. This wasn’t some Victorian era occurrence. It has happened in our life times and still happens in some places.
If they are barring her from the grounds while school is in session, and they are barring her from attending her brother’s sports activities on the grounds, and they are barring her from graduating with her class, how is this not a ban?
Am I missing something here? Is there some kind of other meaning to ‘ban’ that I am not aware of?
Yes, you are missing your own statement that they banned “entirely.” They didn’t. She was allowed on school grounds and she was allow to graduate with her class.
As for a ban, she was suspended for two days. Earlier, I think you said that was appropriate. If you want to change now, that’s fine. But that’s not really a ban.
I do not believe that a school can or should exercise the same authority that a local church does.
I think we all agree on this, which is why the school can do some things that the church does not do. They are different institutions serving different purposes.
Exactly what were the synagogues where Jesus and Paul preached, Larry? Do you remember that one Yiddish word for that institution is precisely the Middle German word for “school”? (“Shul”) Exactly what was the early church doing when they would meet daily?
But really, even if we could assume that the apostles and our Lord had never heard of anything that resembled a day school, what you’re doing is confusing the possibility that the Scripture does not speak in a certain area with cases where it certainly does. For the nth time, we have Biblical examples of how cases like this ought to be handled. What is the need to make it up as we go?
And really, if one cannot infer something from, say, our knowledge of the synagogue or our knowledge of how Paul and Moses selected leaders as a guide for retaining them, we are going to end up in the position of the school board again, and again, and again—trying to impose policies and penalties that really don’t seem to reflect Scripture’s guidance at all.
And young person after young person after young person is going to figure it out, and when they’re out of the house, they will be out of the church, too.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
for any Biblical argument indicating that any ministry leadership board has the right to arbitrarily decide punishments in this case apart from Biblical guidance. Closing in on 150 comments, and we are still at ground zero. Guys, this is sad.
Then you haven’t been reading with an open mind. You have decided that this is arbitrary, yet haven’t demonstrated that. You have argued that it is apart from biblical guidance. Yet it has been shown (and you agreed) that not to be the case. You have simply decided that any view separate from yours is unbiblical. You mention again your four passages that you have already agreed don’t speak to this issue. So why keep bringing up something that you have agreed is irrelevant? I don’t get that, Bert.
You don’t mind applying human wisdom because that is exactly what you have done. You simply want to force everyone to agree with your wisdom and application of the Bible. You do not have room for others to disagree in good conscience about the best way to handle a situation like that. And you do that while accusing the school board of being sin and being authoritarian. I find that unconvincing and I find it troublesome.
And let’s be really blunt here; if anything near 80% of fundamental kids do not reach the marriage altar with their virginity, as statistics indicate, don’t you think the hemorrhage of young people from our churches might have something to do with our approach? That they’re not “scared straight”, but rather “scared out”?
I don’t know of any statistics that suggest 80%. But let’s grant it for the sake of argument. Do you really think that allowing Maddi to walk at graduation is going to change that? It sort of reminds me of that who want to deal with the drug epidemic by legalizing drugs. That way we don’t have nearly as many criminal drug issues. Well, we still have the same issues; we just call it by a different name and treat it differently.
It appears, from the facts in evidence, that the school went above and beyond to treat her with dignity and mercy. I think we should let the school make its decisions about how best to apply the Bible in this case for the good of their school and their purpose as a school.
[Larry]Anyone still want to defend the ‘godly leadership’ of HCA on this one?
What in the world is this about? Not to defend the school, but why is “godly leadership” in quotes? And how does this help anyone understand anything?
You realize, don’t you, that until the very recent past none of these actions would have been controversial even in public schools, right?
How are you any different than the caricature of a fundamentalist who demands that your view is the only acceptable one and that everyone else is dead wrong? (That’s not rhetorical. That’s an actual question.)
Regarding how things used to be done in public schools, why should I care? Would we accept segregation in Christian day schools because the public schools used to do that, too? Have NEA position statements replaced the Scriptures as our sole rule of faith and practice? Or DoEd policies? Are we going to go back to the New Math or whole language reading instruction, or teach kids to put condoms on (ouch) cucumbers?
Regarding the stance Jay and I take (in somewhat different forms), the simple reality is that if we are to have anything resembling honest logic, we have to come to conclusions, and that means concluding that other people are wrong. So you really don’t have a point there. The caricature of fundamentalists—all too often borne out in truth—is not simply that they’re dogmatically insisting on positions, but is rather that there’s precious little Scripture or other evidence to back it up.
Still waiting, by the way, for a justification that doesn’t simply mean “we’re going to defer to the judgment of the school board.” Sorry, I’ve seen way too many appeal to authority cases go disastrous.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Jay]You realize, don’t you, that until the very recent past none of these actions would have been controversial even in public schools, right?
I have graduated from two public schools - a junior high school (8th grade), and a public high school. In both schools, it was very common (by which I mean daily) to see pregnant women, some as far along as eight months, to be going about their classes with the rest of our other students. That was more than a decade ago, but it did happen all the time.
I know what happens in public schools, Larry. Do you?
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/12/02/garden/pregnant-teen-agers-are-outcas…
Note date of 12/2/1993
IN the “old days” of the 1960’s, 50’s and 40’s, pregnant teen-agers were pariahs, banished from schools, ostracized by their peers or scurried out of town to give birth in secret.
Today, pregnant teen-agers are even beginning to be viewed by some of their peers as role models. No longer are they shunned or ridiculed, but supported and embraced in their decisions to give birth, keep their babies, continue their educations and participate in school activities. Some adults, however, including many who in their youth considered the treatment of pregnant girls detestable, are nevertheless shocked by these attitudes.
“When I was in high school, girls got pregnant and they disappeared,” said Richard Schuldt of Eau Claire, Wis. “Now, my pregnant daughter goes on ‘The Montel Williams Show.’ ” Mr. Schuldt’s daughter April was elected homecoming queen at her high school last year when she was five months pregnant. “I’m glad the old days of wearing the scarlet ‘P’ are gone,” Mr. Schuldt, the father of six, added, “but today, teen pregnancy is being treated like it’s no big thing, like it’s the norm.”
Indeed, in interviews with dozens of teen-agers around the nation, a picture emerged of a generation with more tolerant attitudes about teen-age pregnancy. By no means is the change in thinking universal, although it is defended by youths from diverse socioeconomic, racial, regional and academic backgrounds.
The new attitude was reflected in the words of Adina Madden of Washington, who is 18 and a freshman at George Washington University. “You look at a girl who’s pregnant or has a baby and think, ‘She’s a better person than me, someone who is strong,’ ” she said. “There’s no reason to mistreat a girl who is pregnant, like she has some contagious disease.”
In each of the last five years, a little more than one million teen-agers became pregnant, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit research organization specializing in reproductive-health issues. In 1989, the last year for which figures were available, 49 percent of teen-age pregnancies resulted in birth, 37 percent in abortion and 14 percent in miscarriage, the institute said.
A 1972 Federal law made it illegal for schools that receive Federal funds to expel students or to prohibit them from participating in school activities because of pregnancy or parenthood. Although legal experts say some schools are ignoring the law and trying to shift pregnant students into special classes, some pregnant teen-agers are standing their ground, as in these cases:
* In Hempstead, Tex., high school officials were forced to reverse a decision last month to bar pregnant girls from the cheerleader squad after several students protested that it was punishment. The National Organization for Women threatened a lawsuit against the district.
* At Chelsea High School in Manhattan two years ago, the president and the secretary-treasurer of the student council both became pregnant and were encouraged to remain in the posts. Although some students protested, several called the girls role models and said their leadership resulted in the first prom at Chelsea.
* At Eau Claire Memorial High School in Wisconsin a year ago, the principal resigned and three assistant principals were disciplined for tampering with a student election to prevent Ms. Schuldt from becoming homecoming queen.
“If you look at the last 30 years, as a culture we have removed any form of being judgmental about out-of-wedlock pregnancy, as well as a host of other things,” said Gary L. Bauer, the president of the Family Research Council, a social policy research organization in Washington. “While at first glance that may seem to be kind, the fact is that when a society has increasing rates of illegitimacy, it is headed for the rocks of decline.”
Alexander Sanger, the president and chief executive of Planned Parenthood of New York City, said he is trying to answer questions like: How much compassion and understanding should society show toward pregnant teen-agers, and when does compassion become a license to do as one pleases?
“You know, we policy makers really don’t understand young people,” Mr. Sanger said. “It’s inevitable that one person’s compassion becomes another person’s incentive. We want to take care of the child and the teen mother, but that can lead to teens looking at it as an incentive, a ticket out of the home. Their apartment is paid for by the city, they receive welfare and food stamps. So how do we do one without the other? We are all wrestling with that.”
The prevailing attitude among the teen-agers interviewed, boys and girls, was that girls who choose to have their babies deserve more credit and respect than those who elect to have abortions and that society should let them enjoy whatever moments of glory come their way, like being a cheerleader or homecoming queen.
They eschew age-old standards that place the responsibility for childbirth primarily on the girl and that brand girls for life for what many teen-agers view as a mistake. And they point out the inconsistency of Hollywood images that glamorize sex and celebrities who have had children out of wedlock but maintain their status as pop-culture icons.
“As society perceives it, abortion is socially correct,” said Heather Haynes, a 17-year-old who works after school as a peer counselor at the Planned Parenthood center in the Bronx. “Ethically, it’s not correct. But you get the sense that it’s the preferred option because it gets rid of the problem quick.”
Carmen Colon, 21, another peer counselor at the center, said: “Life doesn’t have to stop just because you’re pregnant. As long as a girl is in school, why shouldn’t she be able to take part in school activities. There are a lot of girls who aren’t pregnant who are worse role models than some who are.”
In many ways, the youths’ opinions reinforced the notion that there are no simple answers and quick solutions to the problem of teen-age pregnancy.
“I know of girls who won’t take birth control because it means they’re planning to have sex,” said Teresa Moore, 16, of Milwaukee. “Then, if it happens — sex — you have the excuse that you weren’t planning to do it, you just got overwhelmed by the moment. That way, it’s less of a guilt trip if you get pregnant.”
While most of the young people interviewed said they believed that support for pregnant teen-agers is good, they expressed concern that too much support may give the wrong message.
” ‘Welfare’ backwards is ‘farewell,’ ” said Ms. Haynes of the Bronx. “Welfare has become a life style for some teen mothers. I believe they should be helped, but there should be a limit to that help.”
When asked what limits she would impose, Ms. Haynes said, “Welfare would be provided for the first child you have out of wedlock, not the second or third, unless the mother or father worked to support their baby.”
Her proposition sounded strikingly similar to one offered by Charles Murray in “Losing Ground: The Coming White Underclass” (Basic Books, 1984). Mr. Murray, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, has called for a return to the mores of the past. As incentive, he proposed in a recent essay in The Wall Street Journal an “end of all economic support for single mothers” by government, including subsidized housing and food stamps.
In his radio address on Saturday, President Clinton also expressed concern about the number of out-of-wedlock births, adding, “We have to be concerned that without the structure, the discipline, the love of families, too many children face a future stripped of hope.”
Tom Sartwell, 21, of Minot, N.D., who lives in the state with the lowest teen-age pregnancy rate in the nation, according to the Centers for Disease Control, agrees with the need for structure. “My boys snickered when I told them my girlfriend was pregnant,” he said. “They told me this was going to tie me down. But I have to respect her decision not to have an abortion and to try to stay in school. I got a job and I’m supporting my baby. That’s the way it should be.”
But Tina Woolever, a 15-year-old sophomore at Hempstead High School, where the controversy over pregnant cheerleaders took place, said girls who are pregnant must also learn or be taught to be more responsible. “And that may mean they have to give up activities like cheerleading,” she added.
Ms. Schuldt, 18, who gave birth to a son last year and graduated with her class, said: “There were people who felt I would have been a bad role model being up there as homecoming queen pregnant. But maybe some young girl would have seen it differently. Maybe, she would have seen a pregnant girl, continuing school, planning to raise and care for her baby and being supported by other students.”
A 1986 study — the latest such conducted — by the Alan Guttmacher Institute found that the high school completion rate of women who became mothers at 17 or younger nearly tripled, from 19 percent in 1958, to 56 percent in 1986..
These and similar findings have prompted several school districts to establish on-site day care and to offer private tutoring and other assistance to encourage pregnant girls to continue their educations.
In North Dakota, for example, pregnant teen-agers can be tutored at home until they give birth or can attend an alternative high school in which students work at their own pace toward graduation.
“We know most of these girls don’t want to get pregnant, and we don’t want to look down on them when they do,” said Kathy Hauser, a teacher who is director of the Souris River Campus, the alternative school in Minot. “In a way, some people view the help we provide as making pregnancy more acceptable, and I can see their point.”
Nearly all the teen-agers interviewed, regardless of how they viewed out-of-wedlock pregnancy, shared a common belief: society must get its own act together on the issue.
“It is kind of a mixed message circulating out there,” said Ms. Schuldt, who plans to enter college next fall. “It’s different when you’re older and have money to take care of a child. I can understand that. But if you can treat some unwed mothers with respect, then why not do the same for others.
“Just because you’re young, unmarried and pregnant doesn’t mean you’re less of a person.”
Regarding how things used to be done in public schools, why should I care?
Because it reminds us of a day when common grace meant that certain moral standards were regarded as legitimate and certain consequences were regarded as appropriate even by unbelievers. In other words, in the not too distant past, even unbelievers recognized these issues as problems.
Regarding the stance Jay and I take (in somewhat different forms), the simple reality is that if we are to have anything resembling honest logic, we have to come to conclusions, and that means concluding that other people are wrong. So you really don’t have a point there.
Actually you miss my point. I think you are wrong, but I have room for disagreement because I realize that we are applying wisdom to a difficult situation that the Bible does not speak to and we can differ in good conscience about how best to apply the Scripture. You do not have room for disagreement. You have elevated your conclusions about biblical application to the level of biblical revelation and declared that anyone who differs from you is sinning. And that is a problem, it seems to me.
The caricature of fundamentalists—all too often borne out in truth—is not simply that they’re dogmatically insisting on positions, but is rather that there’s precious little Scripture or other evidence to back it up.
Exactly my point here.
Still waiting, by the way, for a justification that doesn’t simply mean “we’re going to defer to the judgment of the school board.” Sorry, I’ve seen way too many appeal to authority cases go disastrous.
Why is deferring to your judgment any less disastrous? Again, this is what you seem not to get. You have declared that you are right and everyone else either must agree with you or be sinning. (Remember, I asked that and you affirmed that those who disagreed with you were in sin.) How can you admit that Scripture doesn’t address this and yet demand that everyone who doesn’t agree with you is in sin? Why should everyone else defer to your judgment, particularly since you know almost nothing about this?
I am way past the issue here. I think it could hardly be less important. What’s of significance here is your methodology that I think is extremely flawed because it does precisely what you say should not be done.
Sad to say, when I hear “this is the way we did it in the 1960s”, the instant picture that comes to mind is Ole Miss, Selma, and Little Rock. Sorry, brothers, but Dixiecrats got a lot of votes, and that should put the kibosh on using historical fact as guide to what’s right. It’s a basic logical fallacy, and we should put it in the dustbin where it belongs.
And really, expelling young mothers made them high school dropouts not qualified for respectable jobs, driving many to strip clubs and prostitution, and my wife’s great great aunt to suicide. Are we going to seriously claim that this was a good policy showing common grace? I hope not.
This leads to three big advantages of using the verses I cited instead of the school board’s approach.
#1, she’s more likely to view these things as “God’s rules” instead of the school board’s rules if Scripture is used. In her interview, she clearly said the latter.
#2, if one uses Exodus 22, John 4 & 8, Matthew 18, and other relevant passages, the clear implications bring family, church, and school together on the same team. Contrast that with the family and the school being at loggerheads, and the church is in parts unknown.
#3, kids caught in fornication, especially pregnant ones, are already terrified of the natural consequences like STDs, pregnancy, and the like—and thus trying to “scare them straight” with punishment merely triggers the “fight or flight” response. That includes the kids at the school who have not gotten pregnant, but obviously want to avoid public humiliation and the bum’s rush.
The school board, and those who support them, seriously need to get their heads away from the “prerogative” or “imperative” to use their “authority” to punish, and to realize the psychology and Scripture behind what’s really going on here.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Grace, by definition is unmerited favor. It cannot be demanded or required. Should the HCA board have shown more grace? No one can say. It’s up to the board to decide. They showed grace when they decided not to expel Maddi, which certainly seems to be warranted in this situation. In retrospect, they probably wish that’s what they had done, but it’s too late now. Instead, they extended grace by allowing her to graduate, and the thanks they receive is both offender and her supporters demanding more.
Does anyone recall the parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard? (Matthew 20:1-16) The Landowner exercised much grace, but not to the degree some expected, which occasioned much grumbling. The Landowner’s reply was, “Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius?” (vs. 13) And, “Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is my own? Or is your eye envious because I am generous?” (vs. 15)
Unless I’m missing something, the situation looks like this. Maddi committed a serious infraction of school rules, for which the penalty is expulsion. HCA took pity upon her, and allowed her to finish her education and receive her diploma. Nothing required them to extend this mercy. However, she was not allowed to remain on compass and finish the year as if nothing happened. In effect, she experienced a kind of de facto expulsion that still allowed her to graduate, but not to walk at the graduation ceremony. Maddi is complaining that her punishment is too harsh, and others have joined the chorus. But there is no objective ground upon which to demand a more lenient penalty. A measure of leniency has been shown. Actually, it is a huge concession, because otherwise she would be unable to receive her diploma. She would probably lose her whole Senior year and be forced to take another year at another school to graduate.
Mercy was extended when none was required. To demand more is to demonstrate ingratitude for what was extended and lack of respect for rules, consequences, and school authority. Students don’t run schools, unless you’re talking about liberal American universities. Christians, of all people, should understand and respect the need for rules and their enforcement. “Question Authority” is usually a bumper sticker found on the cars of political liberals, not Bible believing Christians.
G. N. Barkman
How are you any different than the caricature of a fundamentalist who demands that your view is the only acceptable one and that everyone else is dead wrong? (That’s not rhetorical. That’s an actual question.)
I’m different from the caricatures because I am willling to not treat this like it’s a mortal sin by applying all the penalties that the school did.
Larry, what kind of testimony to the community would it be if they’d suspended her for two days or a week, removed her from leadership, and asked her to address the school….and then moved on and said that the matter was closed? Justice would be done, restitution would be made, and everyone would have moved on. This wouldn’t be a discussion point, and it certainly wouldn’t be a semi-major news story.
Go back and read the comments on that WaPo article I linked to. Christians look like the crazy caricature that you reference to an unbelieving world; that’s why I’m making an issue of this. They say things like “and you don’t believe in abortion?” or “this is why I left Christianity - all law, no grace”. I linked to that article and specifically called out the comments section for that very reason. And it is hypocritical to be ‘pro-life’ and then run a teenage parent out of school the way that HCA has for ‘choosing life.’
But no, we have to make a publick example of her sin.
This discussion is a poor reflection of God on us. God doesn’t require from us nearly what we deserve, and Micah specifically notes that God’s character is not like that. He delights in showing mercy (Micah 7:18-19):
Who is a God like you, who pardons sin and forgives the transgression of the remnant of his inheritance? You do not stay angry forever but delight to show mercy. You will again have compassion on us; you will tread our sins underfoot and hurl all our iniquities into the depths of the sea.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
hint: it wasn’t the school
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
hint: it wasn’t the school
And that makes everything the school did right?
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Discussion